Propofol sedation in routine endoscopy:A case series comparing target controlled infusion vs manually controlled bolus concept

BACKGROUND Many studies have addressed safety and effectiveness of non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation(NAPS)for gastrointestinal(GI)endoscopy Target controlled infusion(TCI)is claimed to provide an optimal sedation regimen by avoiding under-or oversedation.AIM To assess safety and performance of propofol TCI sedation in comparison with nurse-administered bolus-sedation.METHODS Fouty-five patients undergoing endoscopy under TCI propofol sedation were prospectively included from November 2016 to May 2017 and compared to 87 patients retrospectively included that underwent endoscopy with NAPS.Patients were matched for age and endoscopic procedure.We recorded time of sedation and endoscopy,dosage of medication and adverse events.RESULTS There was a significant reduction in dose per time of propofol administered in the TCI group,compared to the NAPS group(8.2±2.7 mg/min vs 9.3±3.4 mg/min;P=0.046).The time needed to provide adequate sedation levels was slightly but significantly lower in the control group(5.3±2.7 min vs 7.7±3.3 min;P<0.001),nonetheless the total endoscopy time was similar in both groups.No differences between TCI and bolus-sedation was observed for mean total-dosage of propofol rate as well as adverse events.CONCLUSION This study indicates that sedation using TCI for GI endoscopy reduces the dose of propofol necessary per minute of endoscopy.This may translate into less adverse events.However,further and randomized trials need to confirm this trend.

Carbon dioxide accumulation during analgosedated colonoscopy: Comparison of propofol and midazolam

AIM: To characterize the profiles of alveolar hypoventilation during colonoscopies performed under sedoanalgesia with a combination of alfentanil and either midazolam or propofol. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to sedation with either propofol or midazolam in an open-labeled design using a titration scheme. All patients received 4 μg/kg per body weight alfentanil for analgesia and 3 L of supplemental oxygen. Oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) was measured by pulse oximetry (POX), and capnography (PcCO 2 ) was continuously measured using a combined dedicated sensor at the ear lobe. Instances of apnea resulting in measures such as stimulation of the patient, a chin lift, a mask maneuver, or withholding of sedation were recorded. PcCO 2 values (as a parameter of sedation-induced hypoventilation) were compared between groups at the following distinct time points: baseline, maximal rise, termination of the procedure and 5 min after termination of the procedure. The number of patients in both study groups who regained baseline PcCO 2 values (± 1.5 mmHg) five minutes after the procedure was determined.RESULTS: A total of 97 patients entered this study. The data from 14 patients were subsequently excluded for clinical procedure-related reasons or for technical problems. Therefore, 83 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years) were successfully randomized to receive propofol (n = 42) or midazolam (n = 41) for sedation. Most of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Ⅱ [16 (38%) in the midazolam group and 15 (32%) in the propofol group] and ASA Ⅲ [14 (33%) and 13 (32%) in the midazolam and propofol groups, respectively]. A mean dose of 5 (4-7) mg of Ⅳ midazolam and 131 (70-260) mg of Ⅳ propofol was used during the procedure in the corresponding study arms. The mean SpO 2 at baseline (%) was 99 ± 1 for the midazolam group and 99 ± 1 for the propofol group. No cases of hypoxemia (SpO 2 < 85%) or apnea were recorded. However, an increase in PcCO 2 that indicated alveolar hypoventilation occurred in both groups after administration of the first drug and was not detected with pulse oximetry alone. The mean interval between the initiation of sedation and the time when the PcCO 2 value increased to more than 2 mmHg was 2.8 ± 1.3 min for midazolam and 2.8 ± 1.1 min for propofol. The mean maximal rise was similar for both drugs: 8.6 ± 3.7 mmHg for midazolam and 7.4 ± 3.2 mmHg for propofol. Five minutes after the end of the procedure, the mean difference from the baseline values was significantly lower for the propofol treatment compared with midazolam (0.9 ± 3.0 mmHg vs 4.3 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.0000169), and significantly more patients in the propofol group had regained their baseline value ± 1.5 mmHg (32 of 41vs 12 of 42,P = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: A significantly higher number of patients sedated with propofol had normalized PcCO 2 values five minutes after sedation when compared with patients sedated with midazolam.